As I walked the last leg of my journey to work, the other day, a peculiar spectacle struck my eye: a homeless man and a pigeon were tussling over a scrap of food in the street not twenty yards from where I stepped. "Surely not," I thought to myself, but further inspection confirmed my original conclusion. The man sat in the alley, huddled against the brick facade of a dry-cleaning shop, eating what appeared to be some sort of bread or perhaps a bagel. A pigeon stood nearby, flapping its wings in frustration as his repeated entreaties and attempts to snatch the food from the man's clutch were rebuffed in a flurry of hands and feathers.

It is an embarrassment that we live in a day and age where scenes like these can still transpire.

For as long as humans have been living in domiciles, animals have huddled under the eaves and slept between the cracks. The cities of Mesopotamia faced jackals; the Visigoths were besieged by wolves; the Incans grappled with jaguars — throughout the history of human civilization, where cities have been erected, animals have inhabited them. Animal proofing is therefore an important step in the improvement of any urban environment.

The dangers are obvious and numerous; though a typical healthcare regime in a first-world country such ours includes safe vaccines for many critical diseases including measles and polio, vaccines for diseases such as rabies are not yet safe enough to be administered generally and preemptively. And while certain precautionary measures to reduce environmental rabies load can be taken including air-dropped vaccine-laced raccoon baits, the best precaution remains to ensure that humans remain indoors while animals remain outside where they're supposed to.

Animal-proof garbage receptacles therefore must necessarily be installed. Though they cost a little more than less durable alternatives, they more than make up for it in efficacy and an increased functional lifespan. What's more, if a prudent policy is pursued whereby all homeowners are equipped with these receptacles, then their unit price will likely plummet in turn.

But as important as raccoons are in the urban ecosystem and as much as they contribute to health nuisances and other nuisances experienced by apartment dwellers and other owners of urban real estate, they are hardly the sole public nuisances.

Pigeons and other urban birds can be effectively controlled with hawk decoys, giving the illusion of an ever-present predatory threat. And where it is not feasible to erect a bobbing prosthetic hawk, lifelike models of dead birds can be placed in strategically visible positions — birds, no less than we humans, know to steer clear of places where their fellow creatures have died of exposure.

Once wild animals have been accounted for, it is necessary to address the problem of feral animals — once-domesticated animals who have forsaken their homes and now live in the open environment without direct assistance from people. Though there is a widespread humane movement to control feral-animal populations by severing their reproductive cycles through spaying and neutering, feral dogs and cats roam the streets of nearly every metropolitan city.

Methods less humane for controlling feral-animal populations have been proposed including more widespread trapping. The proposal, if implemented, would have snares and traps placed at locations where feral animals trot or sleep but where people don't tread as they go about their days and walk to work and such.
A similar proposal would have food items intentionally baited with toxic poisons and left where animals can reach and consume them.

These suggestions, however, are fraught with problems and not simply because of the cost of implementing them. If their effects could be confined to only animals we do not care about, then that would be one thing. But inevitably, our own pets (ones we do care about) would be snared or poisoned, and that would be unacceptable. (Whereas humans know well enough not to go hunting through trash heaps looking for tasty morsels, the same cannot be said for Rex, who would gladly dive into a trash heap and wolf down a three-day-old slice of pizza, strychnine or no, if given the chance.) No educated public would support a policy that leaves their beloved pets to die in the streets, and so those proposals are dead on arrival. Thankfully, a sensible increase in the employment of dog catchers to round strays up and get them off the streets, into shelters, and eventually into homes, is as viable as ever.

By taking these and other prudent steps, we can ensure that scenes like the one I alluded to in the introduction don't have to be repeated. We cannot simply sit idly by and wish these problems would go away; they require a concerted effort on our part to address and resolve them. Let us not shirk today from that moral obligation.

This excellent article mentions a number of satisfactory solutions to the problem of animal control. What it fails to address is the role that each individual animal plays when it purposely invades, and often destroys, human habitat.

Most humans tend pride themselves on a certain sensitivity toward animals and their homes. In the United States we even have an entire federal agency devoted to protecting those resources. Unfortunately in nearly all cases we do not receive similar consideration from most wild animals. The reasons for this are many but it primarily stems from the well understood fact that most non-human animals are extremely intolerant of other species. It appears that this extends to us as well.

Luckily there exists a perfect solution to the difficulty of holding individual animals accountable for their actions. Hunting. Yes, hunting. With a gun, maybe a bow. By hunting down the animals responsible for these transgressions we will send a message to the entire animal kingdom that we will not be bullied, that we are prepared to defend our homes and our freedoms.

...is my shoe, used to kill those creatures that most often invade my house, namely bugs. But I've found that any cleaning product (rag, mop, bottle of 409) is almost as effective. While I agree that raccoons and pigeons and such can be a nuisance, insects are definitely higher on my shit list. Particularly mosquitoes. In fact, in most of the world I'd argue that mosquitoes are much more of a threat to public health than are any sort of mammals - think about all those who suffer and die from malaria every day.

I know, I know, insects can and do serve a purpose in this world - especially as food for other animals. That doesn't mean I have to like them. Ick.

Uhh, No.. (5.00 / 1) (#9)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 01:23:26 AM PST

What we need to do is exterminate those filthy homeless people who steal food from innocent pigeons.

LOL (1.00 / 1) (#17)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 06:47:55 AM PST

Yes Yes Yes.

Finally.

Plenty of opportunity in America for anyone who can count passed ten, and not drewl on their boss.

Kill the Homeless,

--Guess

Opportunity in America (none / 0) (#19)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 06:56:18 AM PST

...and not drewl on their boss.

I believe the word you are looking for is 'drool' -- but I haven't looked it up in the Encyclopedia Brittanica yet.

Son... (none / 0) (#20)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 08:06:30 AM PST

.. when your 63 years old you can tell me about my speling.

OK (none / 0) (#34)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 01:29:29 PM PST

Your spelling is atrocious. Of course, I might assume you do it in an attempt to be annoying or "kewl". But it's more likely that you are just lazy and ignorant.

hey! (none / 0) (#39)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 05:33:24 PM PST

The guy is 63 years old! Show some respect!

Damn Kids (none / 0) (#49)

by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 08:08:39 AM PST

No damn respect. He don't like my spelin or my gramer he can lick it.

Besides the point, Lazy is a Virtue.

When one is lazy one finds the most efficient way of getting something done, so as to return to lounging and such.

Look, we are all part of God's creation. Trying to separate the "good" part of creation from the "nuisance" part of creation is not just wrong -- it is sinful. It is satanic in the most primal meaning of the word -- satanic meaning "following the example of Satan". If you remeber, Satan was a rebellious angel who thought that he was "smart" and "advanced" enough to be the judge. No matter how many moronic tech gadgets you have, you are still not smarter than God. Therefore, I advise you to stop this prideful posturing before you burn yourself. Your sins have a tendency to come around and bite you in the back; you can't really "get away" from sinning, simply because sin is first and foremost a crime against yourself.

Logically, if we are dealing with a God who is both Infinitely Powerful and Infinitely Forgiving (as we most assuredly are), then the finest chance we have at honoring our Lord is to allow him the utmost exercise of his Grace, which of course means providing him with the greatest possible range of sins to forgive.

Now, I feel the objection building that there is enough sin in the world, and I'm sure that to God that's all fine and good. But the Lord's true honor comes through not in forgiving the little rats He didn't really like anyway, but in forgiving the ones that have truly disappointed Him: his best and brightest, the absolute finest human creatures ever created who would, until we began to understand this principle, never be expected to commited an impure act or thought (by which reference, of course, I mean myself and the other 143,999.)

In all seriousness. If you disagree with my ideas, this seems like the proper forum to discuss them in a serious, insightful, and tactful manner. Your ad hominim attacks only serve to weaken whatever point it is that you're trying to make, and I'm frankly obliged to entertain the possibility that you may be trolling.

No really, do you mean that all un-Christian comments are slimy or that there have been some comments on this site that are both slimy and un-Christian? Because I'll agree with the latter, but not the former. It's not very nice to try and bait people with insincere and purposely inflammatory comments, but then it's also not very nice to label everyone who disagrees with you with convenient but not very descriptive labels such as 'liberal.' (I'm still trying to figure out what that word really means.) It's easier to want to contribute to a site where the exchanges don't look like this:

"No, you're wrong, you fascist conservative shithead."

"No you're wrong, you pansy-ass, liberal atheistic asswipe!"

See, cause where's the fun in that? It ain't witty, it ain't constructive, and it just vents the baser emotions without contributing anything.

Anyhow, there are people who aren't Christian but are nonetheless very spiritual, and who definitely respect Christian beliefs and viewpoints. I hope you can return the favor and respect their own spirituality and life processes as well.

It's not very nice to try and bait people with insincere and purposely inflammatory comments

Not only is it not nice, it is in direct contravention of adequacy.org's strict "No Trolling" policy.

We take this kind of thing very seriously. otherweblogs may let their juvenile posters get away with murder. We at adequacy believe that discussion should be controversial, but never abusive. Informative but never inaccurate. Strongly held views are welcome but over emotional reaction is not.

Put simply adequacy.org is a forum for rational discussion of the controversial topics of the day, in an adult manner.

Please report any abuses of this policy to abuse@adequacy.org.

thank you

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

OK, I think the phrase "God-fearing" is a poor one. And, as a coward, when I speak of fear, I do so from personal experience. Sure God is scary, because he's bigger and stronger and smarter, but it's our job to get over the fear through faith rather than wearing the fear as a sign of spiritual worth. --
Support the home page homeless.

I've had about enough of your appeals to authority (none / 0) (#41)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 4th, 2001 at 10:58:50 PM PST

Does it not say, in the book of Jeff chapter 5 verse 12, "Mock me, for I am God, and I look funny."? If you're so Christian, how come you haven't even read your own holy book?

You mean Christians aren't persecuted now?
Open your eyes, man. Christians are the only religious/social group that is "OK" and "hip" to slander and offend in any way possible. Everybody and his kid brother (case and point: you) makes fun of Christians nowadays, at every appropriate and inappropriate opportunity. Take a look at Kuro5hin, for example -- an article about buddism or satanism always meets cheers and self-congratulating back-patting. An article about Christianity always meets the same tripe, usually something along the lines of "Christians are total morons", or "Christianity is a fascist religion", or even "I wish would wipe out all the Christians ". Disgusting, really.

The last time I thought about persecuting someone, I looked into techniques like feeding them to lions, beating them with sticks if they forgot to wear a yellow stripe, or just using legislation. I didn't even consider making fun of them on a web board.

Now that I think about it, though, you're right! Being mocked by a few people on the internet, especially when you've already got a cultural majority, is completely unbearable. Plus, mocking is much cheaper than lions or legislators. I'll definitely be using a new persecution strategy in the future.

___Why should we plant when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?

Truly an outstanding example of liberal "new logic". (i.e. goodthink) You redefined "persecution" to mean "being fed to lions". Obviously, since nowadays you'd have a hard time finding a lion even in a zoo, persecution must be completely eliminated! Yay, we reached Utopia!

P.S. Weblogs have nothing to do with persecution of Christians. I just used Kuro5hin as an good example of the kind of mentality prevalent in our
society. Persecution is in your head, not in the particular dishonest/cruel action you take.

Please allow me to apologize for the insincere tone and the abominable lack of humor in my last post. I was tremendously irritated with one of my fellow computer lab users, and I inappropriately vented my anger in this otherwise respectable discussion forum.

Nevertheless, I was genuinely delighted to find out that mockery has such a deep effect on the Christian community. In the past, whenever I moved from heckling one lone street preacher with a large group of carefully chosen friends, to a more realistic situation commenting on some of the drawbacks of Christian theology in a random group of adults, the cold stares and gentle corrections I have gotten in response made me feel that I had no impact at all. However, now I realize that these people are simply putting on a brave front for my benefit, and so I will redouble my efforts.

Thank you very much for your insight. If you wish to continue this discussion, might I suggest that the first to cite dictionary.com be the loser?

___Why should we plant when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?

But trying to argue with somebody who is prejudiced towards me is pointless. Arguing with you about Christianity is like arguing with a klansman about racial problems. I withdraw; if it pleases your fragile ego, you may consider yourself the winner. Whatever.

--Peace and much love...

Psalm 139 (none / 0) (#46)

by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 08:00:41 AM PST

i believe.

The one that deals with smashing babies heads on rocks making you happy.... Makes persecution a true pleasure.

Any religion with a trinity that tries telling you its a monotheistic "one-god" faith, is asking for it.

Just a few short days ago, the Christian missionaries imprisoned in Afghanistan were in all the news. Christians may be the most persecuted religion in the history of the world.

A. Rightmann

oh good gracious me (none / 0) (#54)

by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 6th, 2001 at 12:28:35 AM PST

Christians are the most persecuted people in history? for god[1]s sake, grow up you whiner.

Most christians have sod all to do with christ. They should be called "vaticanists" or "papal agents", because most of these fucking idiots are so steeped in medieval fetishistic ritualisation they have nothing at all to do with 'christ', reduced to little more than a name and a part in a book. they want to play with their beads, whip themselves, and 'confess' like some real-life porno. I swear, if they were not already culturally established, people would wonder what the hell these weird, obsessive perverts were about.

"this is christs blood and this is christ body" - whooh! ritualistic symbol cannibalism! how fucked up is that? when will this swathe of victims, idiots that have fallen to the oldest, cruellest multinational conspiracy grow up?

christians. great people. they gave us the crusades. they give the irish back-street abortions with coat hangers. they damn you to hell for wanking. the christian 'corporate culture' has caused massive, widespread suffering. Priests are child molesters and crackheads[2]. Time to rip the whole rotten organisation down, and the global cultural homogeoneity it has induced, the excuses it provided to wipe out the indigenous populations of America, Australia and Africa.[3]

Anyway, the Russians have suffered more than anyone else. Check your history.

[1] used ironically - damn them for infiltrating my mother tongue so pervasively!
[2] personal testament - these are two different priests.
[3] "god favours the white man for he verily useth the land better and more productively than those dirty injuns" cannot remember which US president I am paraphrasing here - see "World Orders, Old and New", Chomsky for more information

Christians may be the most persecuted religion in the history of the world.

I'm sorry but I'm afraid I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. I'm quite Catholic and I'm well aware that, Northern Ireland excluded, we're very much not persecuted anywhere. If anything, given our history, its us who do the persecuting.
Of course sometimes I do think some of the anti-Christian things go a bit far (no nativity scenes on goverment property) but all-in-all I'd rather have too many restrictions than not enough.

Read a bit on the history of the Russian Revolution. Quite an eye-opener on where liberalist rationalist moralising gets you. The problem is that any morality not based on God eventually degenerates into whole-sale slaughter and genocide.

--Peace and much love...

Morality and its consequences. (none / 0) (#59)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 08:13:32 AM PST

The problem is that any morality not based on God eventually degenerates into whole-sale slaughter and genocide.

And this is different from moralities based on religious teachings how, exactly? Look at the Crusades, look at Osama's 'Jihad'...

NEW YORK - Responding to recent events on Earth, God, the omniscient
creator-deity worshipped by billions of followers of various faiths for
more than 6,000 years, angrily clarified His longtime stance against
humans killing each other Monday.

To which my reply is:

NEW YORK - Responding to recent events on Adequacy, jsm, the omniscient
creator-deity worshipped by billions of readers of various faiths for
more than 6 months, angrily clarified His longtime stance against
plagiarism and copyright violation Thursday.

Fucking cut it out, people.

... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

Looks like the opening to a story in the Onion, which I actually found rather humorous. Maybe it was altered but the anonymous reader, but it was a good satire about God holding a press conference to clarify his "Thou shall not kill," since so many people can't seem to understand it.

Pigeons are horrible creates that I truly would like to see vanish from this miserable little planet in any way possible. Since I'm a tolerate guy, I'm well aware that this may be considered a bit extreme so I'm willing to have pigeons restricted to places that I will never live or visit again (like New Jersey), rather than eliminated entirely. I sometimes have fantastical dreams where I poison birdseed and drive around the nation's city parks sprinkingly delightful death until those craven diseased-mongering pathetic little beasts.

I heartily agree with your assessment of pigeons. They are dirty, disgusting and ever-more ominously aggressive in their dealings with people. "Flying rats" is about right. There is actually a delightful old song, written and performed by Tom Lehrer (50s satirist and, randomly, math prof at Harvard) called "Poisoning Pigeons in the Park." It describes the pleasure and happiness a couple derive from doing away with pigeons in an amusing variety of ways.

and in case you missed it, the NRA's September issue of American Rifleman ran an excellent article on dove guns (pigeons and doves are the same thing, of course). the dove hunter's got a lot of options available to him. and the ten-gauge solution looked like particularly strong advice. if you had one of those and you saw a pigeon stealing bread from the mouth of the homeless--you could solve a couple of societal problems with a single instance of point-and-click.

...
What is truth? - Pontius Pilate

No. (none / 0) (#53)

by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 10:34:17 PM PST

The answer is blowin' in the wind.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective
companies.
Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org.
The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most
Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source
Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part
of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written
permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by
the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to
legal@adequacy.org.